Connecticut joins the Confederacy, declares themselves "sovereign" and independent of the United States

[RetiredGySgt]

Federal officers can be arrested and prosecuted by states for breaking state laws if they act outside the scope of their duties or behave unreasonably.

state law cannot oppose federal law.

 

[toobfreak]

Well, he is technically correct. But they ARE a part of the United States and cannot get out of that without going to war.

That and the fact that as a sovereign state enjoined as part of the USA, it has both agreed and has a commitment to recognize certain powers in the state while other powers go to the Fed, including border control and immigration enforcement.

Interfere/obstruct ICE and you've committed a felony.

 

[TimFitz]

The Democrats continue to prove how much they hate America and how much they adore the thought of a civil war.

Yet another pathetic right wing projection!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I just explained it to you. In detail. I get its hard for you to concentrate but try. I have faith you can do it.

You're insane.
The left, Dimocrats, fight ANY attempt to strengthen our borders. Doesn't matter what methods are attempted, you guys will always fight it.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I do not doxx, but you can masturbate to that fetish all yous likes. I have been in the military and done security for forty years, and never once had to hide my identity to do my job.

Have you had hordes of individuals across this country fight you every step of the way as you attempt to perform your duties? Have you been followed home, and had your address published?

You can't compare your rent-a-cop experience, with what ICE agents have had to put up with, so don't even try.

 

[Lockback]

Have you had hordes of individuals across this country fight you every step of the way as you attempt to perform your duties? Have you been followed home, and had your address published?

You can't compare your rent-a-cop experience, with what ICE agents have had to put up with, so don't even try.

You just handed him his head.
Embarrassing how completely naive or brainwashed he is.

 

[DonGlock26]

I like to say "it's always 1860 in the Democrat party".

And they just keep proving me right. Lol

Trade them for Alberta.

 

[citygator]

You're insane.
The left, Dimocrats, fight ANY attempt to strengthen our borders. Doesn't matter what methods are attempted, you guys will always fight it.

STOP WATCHING FOX NEWS. Its rotting your brain.

• Barack Obamaexpanded border enforcement significantly during his presidency.
  • Border Patrol staffing roughly doubled compared to the early 2000s.
  • Large investments were made in fencing, surveillance drones, and deportation operations.
  • Obama was criticized by immigration activists for record deportation numbers, earning the nickname “deporter in chief” from some on the left.
• Joe Biden supported the 2024 bipartisan Senate border bill negotiated with Republicans.
  • The proposal included thousands of new asylum officers and Border Patrol agents, faster asylum processing, more detention capacity, and authority to temporarily shut down asylum claims during surges.
  • Many Democrats supported it because they viewed it as a tougher enforcement framework combined with legal immigration reforms.
• Chuck Schumer and many Senate Democrats voted for funding packages that included:
  • additional border technology,
  • fentanyl interdiction,
  • more customs officers,
  • and physical barriers in some areas.
• Hillary Clinton in the 2000s supported “secure borders” language and voted for measures that included fencing and enforcement expansions.
• The 2006 Secure Fence Act passed with support from many Democrats, including then-Senators:
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Barack Obama
  • Joe Biden
• Democratic governors and mayors in border or migrant-destination areas have also pushed for stricter enforcement or faster removals when systems became overwhelmed. Examples include:
  • Eric Adams calling for stronger federal action during the migrant surge,
  • and some Democratic governors deploying National Guard resources to assist with border operations or fentanyl interdiction.

The main philosophical difference continues to be:

• Republicans emphasize deterrence, detention, deportation, and physical barriers.
• Democrats pair enforcement with asylum access, legal immigration pathways, worker visas, and protections for long-term undocumented residents.

No one is for open borders bullshit. It is just FOXNews rotting your brain. I swear you guys are lazy as fck to look into this stuff.

 

[OKTexas]

Federal agents generally operate under federal authority, with the Supremacy Clause allowing them to enforce federal laws nationwide, often independent of local or state permission. While states cannot dictate federal operations, federal agents are not absolutely immune from state law and can be prosecuted if they act outside their lawful duties. [1, 2, 3, 4]

No law enforcement office is immune it they act outside the law. But people just not liking how they go about their duties is not a violation of law. Also ICE is not the only federal law enforcement agency that covers their face to prevent criminals from identifying them.

.

 

[toobfreak]

You just handed him his head.

Shame then. Just too bad he still has nothing of any value.

 

[OKTexas]

You are wrong. They can and ALREADY do dictate operational procedures.

An ICE agent in Connecticut does not get to say:

• “I’m federal, so I can ignore Connecticut speed limits.”
• “I’m federal, so I can park in a fire lane.”
• “I’m federal, so I can blow through red lights.”
• “I’m federal, so I don’t need a valid driver’s license.”

You simply typing the opposite doesnt make it true.

I'm not aware of any law enforcement agency that would allow an officer/agent to drive without a license. As for the other three, federal agents have the same latitude as any Connecticut law enforcement officer has. That would include pursuing a suspect, setting up undercover operations and parking where ever the hell they need to. And if local law enforcement won't provide support, the feds have no obligation to coordinate with them.

.

 

[22lcidw]

Connecticut is not claiming it can abolish ICE or stop federal immigration enforcement outright. That would lose immediately under the Supremacy Clause.

Instead, Connecticut is arguing it can regulate the manner in which law enforcement: including federal officers physically operating in Connecticut that engages the public, just like states regulate:

• use of force
• trespass
• assault
• impersonation
• licensing
• public safety conduct
• courtroom access
• state building access
• police identification rules

Their argument is: “You can enforce federal law here, but if you are doing it in our state, in public, while armed and detaining people, you do not get to behave like anonymous masked secret police.”

I do not really care about New England. I wish I did. Near all Senators and Representatives are Progressive Socialist Communists. Neighboring states New York, New Jersey and Delaware and Maryland are getting closer and closer with areas inside them in full Communist glory.

 

[Lockback]

I do not really care about New England. I wish I did. Near all Senators and Representatives are Progressive Socialist Communists. Neighboring states New York, New Jersey and Delaware and Maryland are getting closer and closer with areas inside them in full Communist glory.

New England, like the Left Coast, is a lost cause for now. Literally Communist. I never thought I'd see that sick, warped failed system gain so much popularity. It appeals to the dumb and the lazy and envious and apparently we have an abundance of them.

 

[citygator]

I'm not aware of any law enforcement agency that would allow an officer/agent to drive without a license. As for the other three, federal agents have the same latitude as any Connecticut law enforcement officer has. That would include pursuing a suspect, setting up undercover operations and parking where ever the hell they need to. And if local law enforcement won't provide support, the feds have no obligation to coordinate with them.

.

Again... Federal officers have to abide by state laws youre just describing the few exceptions to it around imminent danger. Nothing to do with standard procedure. If someone gets in a car and starts speeding away at 100mph fee free to put a mask on... but for normal business they have to follow the law. They cant drive 100mph to work because they are late.

 

[Thinker101]

Again... Federal officers have to abide by state laws youre just describing the few exceptions to it around imminent danger. Nothing to do with standard procedure. If someone gets in a car and starts speeding away at 100mph fee free to put a mask on... but for normal business they have to follow the law. They cant drive 100mph to work because they are late.

The answer is no, because the federal official has immunity from the state criminal law, derived from carrying out federal law or duties and thus protected by the Supremacy Clause- the supremacy of federal law over state law....idiot.

Do federal agents have to follow state laws?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again... Federal officers have to abide by state laws youre just describing the few exceptions to it around imminent danger. Nothing to do with standard procedure. If someone gets in a car and starts speeding away at 100mph fee free to put a mask on... but for normal business they have to follow the law. They cant drive 100mph to work because they are late.

you are of course aware that the federal Judiciary already said no to California's mask law right?

 

[citygator]

The answer is no, because the federal official has immunity from the state criminal law, derived from carrying out federal law or duties and thus protected by the Supremacy Clause- the supremacy of federal law over state law....idiot.

Do federal agents have to follow state laws?

There is no federal law on masked ICE agents. There is no supremacy issue in conflict. Your link specifically outlines that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no federal law on masked ICE agents. There is no supremacy issue in conflict. Your link specifically outlines that.

the states cannot dictate to the federal Government how to run Federal law enforcement operations or tactics.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no federal law on masked ICE agents. There is no supremacy issue in conflict. Your link specifically outlines that.

the court has already struck down California's attempt to prevent masks dumbass.

 

[citygator]

you are of course aware that the federal Judiciary already said no to California's mask law right?

California lost not because of the mask requirement but because of how it was written:

“California is not imposing a neutral public-safety rule on everyone. It is selectively burdening federal officers.”

Judge blocks California’s ban on federal agents wearing masks but requires badges be clearly seen

A federal judge on Monday blocked a California law from going into effect that would ban federal immigration agents from covering their faces, but they will still be required to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number.

www.ksbw.com

Connecticut doesnt have that issue.